Saturday, July 9, 2011
Incorporate This
Just for the record, folks, you can't tax a corporation. You can only tax PEOPLE. And, yes, according to William Gentry's paper for the Treasury Department, it's labor (you know, actual flesh and bone workers - the people that progressives are supposed to care about) that tends to bear the biggest burden of the corporate tax. Couple that with the fact that a) the corporate tax doesn't really raise all that much money, b) it encourages firms to waste valuable resources on tax avoidance, and c) it's a major factor in lobbying and, yeah, you are kind of forced to see the clumsiness of it............................................................................................My proposal, folks (and, yes, I was glad to see that Megan McCardle of "The Atlantic" essentially has the same one), is to eliminate the corporate income tax completely BUT, in addition, eliminate also the special treatment of capital gains. Have it taxed as regular income, in other words. American companies will no doubt flourish (hell, we might even be able to get a few foreign companies to switch on over) and, AND, we'll still be able to stick it to the fat-cats. I mean, really, who in the hell loses here? I don't see anybody who loses.................................................................................................Oh, and, if you think that it's only right-wingers and "corporatists" who support the elimination of corporate income taxes, think again. One of the articles that supports such a move I actually derived from the progressive blog, "Firedog Lake" (firedoglake.com/newbroomparty/2010/09/29/why-progressives-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax). What do you think about that?........................................................................................................P.S. Just for full disclosure here, the Firedog Lake proposal had as its trade-off a sort of import tax. I myself much prefer Ms. McCardle's proposal of raising the capital gains tax instead. Her article can be had at theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate -income-tax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
But according to the Supreme Court, corporations are PEOPLE.
This could be an ancillary benefit, Jerry. If we take away personhood in terms of taxation, then maybe that stupid ruling about unlimited spending on campaigns can be also over-ruled.
I don't see any "ancillary benefit" to the US going fully fascist.
"Just for the record, folks, you can't tax a corporation. You can only tax PEOPLE"
This is applicable to free speech issues as well. Those who angrily oppose the Citizen's United decision getting rid of censorship need to remember that you can't censor a corporation; you can only censor people.
Will: Just for the record, folks, you can't tax a corporation. You can only tax PEOPLE.
Baloney. Complete and utter nonsense. If you can't tax a corporation, WHY would they be "wasting valuable resources" avoiding those taxes... you know, the ones you say can only be applied to people.
You want to know who loses? Democracy loses. Corporations would completely take over our government using the extra millions you want to hand them.
You SAY "the American eagle needs both wings to fly", but the end result of this proposal would be an American eagle with ONE wing... made up of corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats.
Yes, this really is a great idea... a great idea if you want to destroy democracy.
"Corporations would completely take over our government using the extra millions you want to hand them."
I read Will's post front and back. It hands corporations $0. Nada, zilch.
Also, Will's idea has nothing to do with democracy, and has no impact for or against.
I never knew anybody who was so enslaved by orthodoxy and who made such stereotypical responses before (yeah, I'm talking about wd). When I said that corporations don't pay taxes, that only people do, I meant that it isn't the buildings and computers who pay taxes, it's the people who use them, THE WORKERS! The corporate income tax isn't just a clumsy device that doesn't raise all that much money, it's also largely a regressive (it impacts labor more than it does management) tax. Removing the special consideration for capital gains - now THAT would be a progressive tax! And isn't that what you frigging want, for Christ? To get as much as you can out of the rich people?
Here's an example. Maybe this'll help. Right now people like Warren Buffett are making most of their income via capital gains. And they're only paying 15% on it! Under my system, he would be paying 40%. My God, just on Mr. Buffett alone, we'd be bringing in millions of dollars more in tax revenue.............No, still don't like it? LOL
Supply and demand determines how much a corporation can charge for its product or service. This meme that the corporate income tax is passed along to the consumer is false. The shareholders pay the tax (they receive less dividends).
The solution is to raise taxes on the uber-wealthy. This will disincentivize overpaying CEOs (and not allow corporations to pay their CEO in stock options). Then the corporation will have plenty of money to pay their taxes.
Close loopholes and MAYBE the rate could be reduced (I don't have enough information to make a YES or NO decision on that right now). Eliminate it completely? That's a non-starter for me.
Tax capitol gains at the same rate -- I'd be in favor of that too (not instead). But I'd provide for an exemption for people with low income. My retired parents (whose income is on the low end) own stock. Doubling the tax rate on capitol gains would really hurt them.
I said that LABOR pays the brunt of it.............And I tried to explain it to you before. When Starbuck's raises it's price a nickel, Starbucks' customers don't go running off to Dunkin' Donuts. The same thing with Apple computers. If the price suddenly goes up a few bucks, people don't automatically say, "Gee, I better get an IBM instead (keeping in mind that they have to pay this idiotic tax, too). All indications are that the corporate income tax is a regressive tax. But since you have this totally imprinted notion that corporations are somehow evil, you simply cannot change your paradigm. You're a flat-out true believer on steroids, dude. And do you even pay taxes?
Here, learn something from a fellow progressive. This is from Jersey McJones over at RN's blog................"Les, good ol' ultra-liberal Jersey McJones has been advocating for what you are advocating here for years - but with one first and main addition: A corportaion is not a US citizen. It may not fund election campaigns - period, ever. On top of that, we need a campaign contribution limit of ten dollars. Without that, you'll never get the other things anyway. Corporate taxation is preferred by the very wealthy. They know that without those taxes, more tax revenues would have to come directly out of their personal profits."...............I agreed with Mr. McJones's stipulations, btw................As for your wanting to tax the uber-wealthy, I think that that we should tax the uber-envious. Bill Gates and his wealth have done a lot more to make the world a better place than you and the rest of the redistributionists could ever frigging hope to.
All indications are that if you tax a rich person he'll just pass that tax along to a middle class or poor person. For that reason the tax on all rich people should be zero. They are the "job creators" after all. In fact, rich people should all get subsidies from the government in appreciation. Any other suggestion is class envy.
BTW, corporations don't care about funding campaigns anymore. They can run their own ads independent of campaigns. And spend unlimited dollars doing so with no disclosure what-so-ever.
Conservatives are the real wealth redistributors. The wealthy redistribute wealth to themselves by (1) overpaying themselves and underpaying workers, and (2) buying politicians to rig the tax system in their favor.
I believe the policies we should follow are the ones that bring prosperity to everyone. Envy has nothing to do with it, so you can stuff that BS as well as the BS about me being a "flat-out true believer on steroids".
Obviously you're a flat-out true believer on steroids in the corporatist agenda.
WD said: "The solution is to raise taxes on the uber-wealthy. ....Then the corporation will have plenty of money to pay their taxes."
If only it worked this way. But it doesn't. The entire amount a CEO makes is tiny compared to the amount of money the corporation has.
-------------------
WD said: "All indications are that if you tax a rich person he'll just pass that tax along to a middle class or poor person."
This is true, to a degree. Rich people have a lot of resources and ways to pass the "pain" to others.
It usually does happen. Do you remember the Clinton-era luxury tax? A nasty and greedy bit of legislation enacted without the slightest thought as to its effects.
It ended up discouraging the rich from buying expensive boats/etc. They spent their money elsewhere. So instead of the government getting more money, working stiffs at boat factories got laid off as boat sales plummeted.
As for corporations running ads, that is fine with me. As it should be fine with anyone who likes Constitutional rights. Because, after all, in reality no corporation ever speaks at all. These campaign ads are made by people, individuals. If you don't like the ads, ignore them. Don't censor them.
I agree with Will about not having corporations fund campaigns. But EVERYONE has the right to speak out on issues. It is truly fascism to censor this. It's ridiculous to deny individuals the right to speak out because they are associated with organizations that you detest.
Your interpretation that all individuals can be censored unless they meet some arbitrary definition of 'the press' has no constitutional basis.
The luxury tax was miss-placed. It should have been placed on their income as a higher income tax bracket and not on their consumption of particular items.
dmarks: it should be fine with anyone who likes Constitutional rights.
I hate Constitutional rights.
My dad (who is far less liberal than I) and I were talking politics this morning and he voiced his concern about uninformed people being swayed by slick ads. I asked him if he thought Congress should do something about it and he said yes... and then he added, "because I hate Constitutional rights".
Again with the hackneyed corporatist agenda accusations. I've put forth a proposal here which gets rid of a regressive tax and replaces it with a progressive one (you didn't like my Warren Buffett example?). Couple that with the fact that I've consistently said that I'm in favor of public funding of elections and, dude, your assessment here is comical. Please, think outside the orthodoxy for once.
dmarks, I was thinking about that luxury tax, too. I'm from New England and remember how it almost put the yacht making business under in Rhode Island. A PERFECT example of government not thinking something through.
Will: That often happens. But I remember the leftists STILL wanting this tax in place.
Conservatives = against taxes on billionaire yachts & living wages for working people.
That's the point, wd. It wasn't the yacht owners who got hurt by that idiotic tax. It was the yacht builders who got reamed.
Will: It wasn't the yacht owners who got hurt by that idiotic tax. It was the yacht builders who got reamed.
Because if you're rich enough to be able to afford a yacht a small luxury tax is a deal breaker? Maybe these people didn't really want yachts.
Your jealousy/hatred of the rich is causing you to defend a tax that put hundreds of Rhode Island yacht builders out of work. That is truly sad, dude.............As to how much the people "really wanted" the yachts, that is totally immaterial here. The fact is that the tax had unintended consequences and was exceedingly wrong-headed. People just don't like being singled-out, wd.
I was just asking a question, so you can cut out this "jealousy/hatred" bullshit. It's getting old. Another tactic you use frequently is to call valid points I raise "totally immaterial". IMO the point was TOTALLY material.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the concept of a luxury tax. I don't know the particulars of what you're talking about though... and therefore wasn't able, and wasn't trying, to defend it.
Perhaps the tax was too high... or do you object to luxury taxes of any kind? I think you're just bitter because of the extra tax you had to pay on your yacht (I'm guessing you must own one).
WD said: "Perhaps the tax was too high... "
Ah. A good start, a good way to look at most taxes with a critical eye.
Post a Comment